Search for: "EMPLOYERS LIABILITY &C. CORP. v. Lewis" Results 1 - 20 of 23
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
FCA laws encourage whistleblowing by permitting relators to collect anywhere from 10% to 30% of the proceeds of a successful FCA claim.3 States further encourage whistleblowers to bring these actions by promising protection against employer retaliation, if applicable. [read post]
23 Aug 2018, 6:52 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  As discussed below, these potential claims and legislation will not only impact Employment Practices Liability (“EPL”) policies, but also have the potential to affect directors and officers, general liability and other types of insurance policies. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 8:38 pm
   Identify the relationship between CSR regimes and the regulation of corruption, enterprise liability and environmental sustainability objectives. 9. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 12:01 pm by ligitsec
Gasaway, University of Georgia School of Law; Professor Michael Madison, University of Pittsburgh School of Law; Professor Ruth Okediji, University of Oklahoma Law School; Alfred C. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 12:59 pm
(U.S.S.C., April 25, 2017, Lewis v. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 7:01 am by John Elwood
In the early 1970s, amid widespread popular concern about declining legal employment and attorneys’ stagnant hourly rates (resulting even in street protests), Congress took decisive action to ensure full employment for America’s lawyers. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 9:22 am by Christa Culver
Army Corps of EngineersDocket: 10-1059Issue(s): The court of appeals held in this case that land transfers by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to the State of South Dakota pursuant to the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 did not violate §§ 605(b)(3) and (c)(1)(B) of that Act because they did not include lands within the “external boundaries” of the Yankton Sioux Reservation. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 6:15 am by Steven Peck
The contract stated that if COLA audited Miracle Star regarding services it provided under the contract, and if that audit found that COLA's dollar liability for those services was less than COLA's payments to Miracle Star, the difference would be either repaid by Miracle Star or, at COLA's option, credited against any amounts due Miracle Star from COLA under the contract. [read post]